Thompson v. Young

by Supreme Court of the United States

THOMPSON verʃus YOUNG.

O

N a rule to fhew caufe why an Exoneretur fhould not be entered on the Bail-piece, it appeared, that the Defendant was a refident of Maryland (though he came occafionally to Philadelphia upon bufinefs) and was duly difcharge under the infolvent law of that State. Upon the authority of Millar verʃus Hall, ant. 229. the rule was made abfolute.

Sergeant and Ingerʃoll, for the Plaintiff, attempted to eftablifh this diftinction, that, in Millar verʃus Hall, the Defendant was a citizen of Maryland, and that the money, for which the action was brought, had been received in Baltimore; but that in this cafe, Young, though fometimes in Maryland, was, in fact, a citizen of Pennʃylvania, and that the debt was contracted here. They acknowledged, however, after the examination of the witneffes, that they had failed in their proof ; and, therefore, no argument was made in fupport of the diftinction.